2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grinner said:
It's disgusting that they would piss away so much money on a speech, and that she would accept it.
Click to expand...


Hillary gave THREE speeches to Goldman Sachs for $675k I think, you can't honestly tell me that they just liked to hear her talk so invited her back a second and third time. Unless she was giving them the lottery numbers the talks must have been exceedingly special, and the fact she won't release the transcripts for those is rather telling, as are the numerous reports of what was said by many people attending those particular speeches.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969

How much did the Blair's make when they did the world circuit? I remember it being reported as over £10 million. It's all wrong imho, and I think I am definitely in the wrong job.
 
langster said:
It's all wrong imho, and I think I am definitely in the wrong job.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it's how life works, everywhere.

I subscribe to Marxism, and think that one day society will reach critical mass at which point there will be a violent revolution and realignment of class interest, but it must happen naturally. Until such time, it's pointless to fight against the entrenched order by so-called peaceful democratic revolution. You can't generate the enthusiasm when the masses while oppressed still contend themselves with fastfoods and cheap porn.

People like Blair, Clinton etc... are not inherently evil. But the orbit they operate in insulate them from the common man's perspective. I've seen people with a fraction of their wealth squandering tens of thousand of dollars for exotic pet or branded liquor, antiques etc... To them, it's how it should be, and on a primal level, you can't argue against that. The one with more power have always gotten more resources. While it's easy to express outrage at such avarice on an online forums, I doubt any here would refuse those offers if put in the same position.

How many times have you walk past a beggar on the street even if you can spare a few bucks? It's easy to close our eyes to the sufferings of the downtrodden around us.
 
The problem isn´t that she is rich and that she is able to make a shit-ton of money. The problem is, that this money is directly affecting her policy decisions. That doesn´t make her evil, because I agree that most people would do the same under similar circumstances, yet it makes her a shit candidate for the presidency.
And to follow up on this: No, not every politician is doing it in similar fashion.
 
PedroMendez said:
The problem isn´t that she is rich and that she is able to make a shit-ton of money. The problem is, that this money is directly affecting her policy decisions. That doesn´t make her evil, because I agree that most people would do the same under similar circumstances, yet it makes her a shit candidate for the presidency.
And to follow up on this: No, not every politician is doing it in similar fashion.
Click to expand...

What are these policy decisions you speak of ? The SecState position implements the President's foreign policy.
 
Ubik said:
Bleh, this is not a good headline to have - http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/24/bernie-sanders-poor-people-dont-vote-primary-losses
Click to expand...

Not a popular headline but he's absolutely right. Its a fact that voter turnout amongst lower income Americans is very low. I'm glad he's shone the spotlight on it, people need to know they can push for seismic changes if they mobilished en masse - Sander's own campaign has been testament to that. Because let's face it, the establishment are more than happy for them to stay home and keep the status quo ticking.

Its not just a problem with the poor either.
 
Apparently the Koch brothers are supporting Hillary Clinton- says its all about both the quality of Republican candidates and how pro-rich people Clinton will be
 
Drainy said:
Apparently the Koch brothers are supporting Hillary Clinton- says its all about both the quality of Republican candidates and how pro-rich people Clinton will be
Click to expand...

Clinton is pretty much an ideological Republican in all but name. The difference between her and her GOP opponents is that she's not batshit insane, hence why its unsurprising the Koch brothers support her. I'd expect other billionaire business people to follow suit. She's the establishment champion across the spectrum.
 
Kaos said:
Clinton is pretty much an ideological Republican in all but name. The difference between her and her GOP opponents is that she's not batshit insane, hence why its unsurprising the Koch brothers support her. I'd expect other billionaire business people to follow suit. She's the establishment champion across the spectrum.
Click to expand...

Being establishment doesn't make her Republican. A vast majority of her policy positions are supported by Democrats, which is not surprisingly why nearly all Republicans hate her.
 
Raoul said:
Being establishment doesn't make her Republican. A vast majority of her policy positions are supported by Democrats, which is not surprisingly why nearly all Republicans hate her.
Click to expand...

Didn't say it did. Only that she's probably the establishment choice across both parties.

The Republicans hate her simply because she's a Clinton who's served in the Obama administration, nothing more and nothing less. She could echo their views (and she does in some aspects) and they'd still hate her.
 
Kaos said:
Didn't say it did. Only that she's probably the establishment choice across both parties.

The Republicans hate her simply because she's a Clinton who's served in the Obama administration, nothing more and nothing less. She could echo their views (and she does in some aspects) and they'd still hate her.
Click to expand...

So basically she's not an ideological Republican in all but name as you say. You just don't like her foreign policy positions, which don't jive with your left wing Chomskyite world view.
 
Raoul said:
So basically she's not an ideological Republican in all but name as you say. You just don't like her foreign policy positions, which don't jive with your left wing Chomskyite world view.
Click to expand...

She's pretty much a Rockefeller Republican and her policy positions are consistent to what you'd expect to hear from moderate republicans. Its the effect of both parties essentially undergoing a rightward shift. And there's plenty I dislike about her platform beyond her foreign policy, amazingly enough I harbour opinions beyond the realm of foreign relations.
 
Kaos said:
She's pretty much a Rockefeller Republican and her policy positions are consistent to what you'd expect to hear from moderate republicans.
Click to expand...

Here are Hillary's advertised policy positions - https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ . How many of them are being championed by the Republicans at the moment ? They are light years apart on many of them ranging from LGBT rights, Environmental policy, racial justice, voting rights, minimum wage, women's rights, and the list goes on.

Kaos said:
Its the effect of both parties essentially undergoing a rightward shift. And there's plenty I dislike about her platform beyond her foreign policy, amazingly enough I harbour opinions beyond the realm of foreign relations.
Click to expand...

Its sort of hard to say both parties are shifting to the right when the Democrats are within a whisker (or indictment) away from nominating a socialist as their nominee.
 
Clinton is bang in the middle of the modern Dems ideologically.
 
It's become very clear after New York that Sanders does not have a path to the nomination any more, what is he doing wasting everyone's time and money dragging this whole thing out?
 
Raoul said:
Here are Hillary's advertised policy positions - https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ . How many of them are being championed by the Republicans at the moment ? They are light years apart on many of them ranging from LGBT rights, Environmental policy, racial justice, voting rights, minimum wage, women's rights, and the list goes on.
Click to expand...

None, because there aren't any moderates in the GOP race. But her neocon take on foreign policy in addition to her links to Wall Street puts her more in line with the GOP than it does with genuine progressives. I'd put her very much in that distorted Bloomberg camp.


Raoul said:
Its sort of hard to say both parties are shifting to the right when the Democrats are within a whisker (or indictment) away from nominating a socialist as their nominee.
Click to expand...

Bernie is essentially an Independent using the Dem ticket as a more viable platform. The reason he's gained so much traction is because he's galvanised young voters and those disillusioned with the state of progressive politics. The front-runner still remains a more right-wing choice than her predecessor.
 


We recently discussed this problem, I can't remember if it was this thread or the gun control one though? It's a great little video and he touches lots of important points in it. I wonder what the next President will do to combat these problems?

Anyway, seeing as I haven't been around much recently and was admitted back to hospital again (FFS!) and also took a short break away, it's been far too long since I bashed the shit out of Drumpf, so here's a lovely article that does just that.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ld-trump-brutal-worldview-father-coach-213750
 
Cal? said:
It's become very clear after New York that Sanders does not have a path to the nomination any more, what is he doing wasting everyone's time and money dragging this whole thing out?
Click to expand...

That's simply just not true is it though? Agreed it has become very unlikely now, but not impossible and he still does have a path, and more than one if you include indictment as well. A lot of the states coming up soon are very much what many would consider "Bernie states". If he does well and goes on another winning streak like he did prior to the NY primary, then it's not inconceivable that the Super-Delegates could switch sides or he could force a contested convention on the Democratic side.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/a-contested-democratic-convention_b_9672328.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/11/politics/harry-reid-contested-convention/index.html

He also still consistently beats all the Republican candidates in head to head polls (except one to Kasich) so I find it poor form that people would basically say he has no chance at all when he clearly does still have a fighting chance, improbable as it may be, it's still a chance.
 
Kaos said:
None, because there aren't any moderates in the GOP race. But her neocon take on foreign policy in addition to her links to Wall Street puts her more in line with the GOP than it does with genuine progressives. I'd put her very much in that distorted Bloomberg camp.




Bernie is essentially an Independent using the Dem ticket as a more viable platform. The reason he's gained so much traction is because he's galvanised young voters and those disillusioned with the state of progressive politics. The front-runner still remains a more right-wing choice than her predecessor.
Click to expand...

There certainly have been moderates in the race (as in non-Tea Party types or otherwise right wingers). Jeb Bush, Christie, Fiorina, Gilmore, Pataki etc. And one of them is still in the race now.

Hillary's foreign policy positions are certainly not neocon ones in the Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz mold, they are more in line with Joseph Nye's Smart Power doctrine of using a blend of hard and soft power to advance policy. She is more interventionist than Obama, who leans more towards the position that US intervention has historically led to problems that are hard to reverse, whereas Hillary believes the US should be leaning forward a lot more in promoting Democracy and challenging systems that don't support Democratic values. Sanders is actually more closely aligned with Obama's world view and would almost certainly spend his Presidency winding up Netanyahu and the Israelis (probably doubly annoying to them since he's an ethnic Jew). Hillary would be far more forward leaning on using the UN's Responsibility to Protect doctrine to protect populations from genocide.
 
langster said:
That's simply just not true is it though? Agreed it has become very unlikely now, but not impossible and he still does have a path, and more than one if you include indictment as well. A lot of the states coming up soon are very much what many would consider "Bernie states". If he does well and goes on another winning streak like he did prior to the NY primary, then it's not inconceivable that the Super-Delegates could switch sides or he could force a contested convention on the Democratic side.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/a-contested-democratic-convention_b_9672328.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/11/politics/harry-reid-contested-convention/index.html

He also still consistently beats all the Republican candidates in head to head polls (except one to Kasich) so I find it poor form that people would basically say he has no chance at all when he clearly does still have a fighting chance, improbable as it may be, it's still a chance.
Click to expand...
He really doesn't. Toss anything Seth Abramson says in the bin cause it's laughable garbage. There just aren't enough delegates left for him to get back level, unless you seriously think he can win California by 40%. And superdelegates deserting Clinton for someone that's lost the popular vote and delegate count is not happening in any parallel universe.
 
The Clintons' foreign policy is best described in one sentence from Bill, 'failing is not failure, failing to try is a failure'.

They basically believe in promoting American democracy and policing the world by using military force if necessary. It's a pattern. Black Hawk Down, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya. Now you can argue whether or not that's wise, but it's too simplistic to say that's neocon.
 
Raoul said:
Feck me...just crunched some numbers and Trump looks like he's got this thing wrapped up.
Click to expand...

If he wins Indiana then I think he'll get or be very close to 1237 at which point the unbound delegates from PA would put him over the top.

Grinner said:
At this point I'd even bet that he will win the whole thing. This is just so improbable.
Click to expand...

If we practice saying "President Trump" from now, we may get used to it by November.
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
If he wins Indiana then I think he'll get or be very close to 1237 at which point the unbound delegates from PA would put him over the top.



If we practice saying "President Trump" from now, we may get used to it by November.
Click to expand...

There are unbound delegates in PA and also from other candidates that are still in play, so technically he could wind up with 1200 and still get to 1237. If you add that to the fact that he's killin it in Indiana and California right now, it doesn't really leave Cruz and Kasich with much oxygen to pick off delegates.
 
Sweet Square said:
How much truth is in this

3:20

Click to expand...

Just liberal panic, which even I'll probably indulge in when the nominations are confirmed. He's never going to win 15% of black voters, he'll be lucky to get half that.
 
Ubik said:
Just liberal panic, which even I'll probably indulge in when the nominations are confirmed. He's never going to win 15% of black voters, he'll be lucky to get half that.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the female votes too, of which it's doubtful he will get many either, the biggest worry would be low voters turnout.
 
langster said:
Not to mention the female votes too, of which it's doubtful he will get many either, the biggest worry would be low voters turnout.
Click to expand...
Doubly relevant as black women voters outnumber black male voters quite heavily.

I think low turnout harms Trump as well, as I think the likeliest group to sit out would be white college-educated GOPers. Doesn't take a lot of that for places like Georgia, Texas, Missouri and Arizona to get competitive.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
The Clintons' foreign policy is best described in one sentence from Bill, 'failing is not failure, failing to try is a failure'.

They basically believe in promoting American democracy and policing the world by using military force if necessary. It's a pattern. Black Hawk Down, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya. Now you can argue whether or not that's wise, but it's too simplistic to say that's neocon.
Click to expand...
Black Hawk Down is a place?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.